Philosophy Now Forum

Cerveny wrote:To the dilatation/contraction: simply saying - "real" means it has any real impact to the subject. See the example: I am moving by very fast velocity. STR says "your time runs slower" (in comparison with other world). But do I live longer? No, all „contractions/dilatations" are only formal changes following from change of representation (frame). They used to prove STR by some muons caught on the Earth surface. But from such muons’ point of view we should have lived for thousands years (if mentioned time dilatations are real). STR contractions/dilatations are only formal. It is as if I use, let say, hexadecimal calculator instead of decimal one (in the best case)

All that is as it should be according to the theory. Of course the notion of time "running slower" is a formality. In reality, time does not run at all.

Cerveny wrote:As for determinism: Do you really believe that you are already prepared somewhere in (remote) region of "space-time", let say, ten years older? Perhaps the common purpose of the mankind is determined; perhaps it is a "blossom" of the life, prepared for an extra-terrestrial life spreading, but hardly in the detail…

I have answered that question from you before. Let me quote our exchange from that other thread: (I've coloured the posts for easy distinction.)

Cerveny wrote:The continuum of “space-time” is nonsense - the time after the “now” is not created yet.

Notvacka wrote:It's the notion of "now" that is nonsense. The only difference between past and future is your perspective.

"Not created yet" is nonsense. Our future differs from our past in that we are not there yet, as opposed to not there any longer.

After 100 odd years Einstein's theory of relativity is still going strong, and it will never be proven wrong. It might be superseded by some other theory, but that theory would have to include Einstein's theory as a special case, just like Einstein never proved Newton's theories wrong either; they are included as a special case and still perfectly useful.

Cerveny wrote:Let us suppose the "space-time continuum" really exists. Then its "time-cut", the projection in the certain time (say 1/1/2013) must (now) exist too. What is in it (prepared)? Elementary particle? You? The concept of space-time supposes determined Universe. It is not acceptable for me. Such Universe does not have sense. And it is one of the reasons why we are to bring the philosophy in the physics. After 100 years we are not able to quantize TR for many serious reasons. In the time when Einstein was creating TR even antimatter was not known. We prove TR by unbelievable precise measurement but we ignore "dark matter/energy" phenomena that are about many orders more expressive. And what is worse, we ignore logic and health sense.

Notvacka wrote:It's common to think that the deterministic nature of relativity theory and the randomness of quantum mechanics somehow contradict each other. But, interestingly, time has no arrow in quantum mechanics. The cause might as well depend upon the effect as the other way around.

In quantum mechanics, as in every day life, probability only exists in the absence of certainty. When you look into the box, then you find out if the cat is alive or dead. And after the fact the "probability" is always 100 percent either way. But since "after" can be substituted with "before" on a quantum level, the "probability" is always 100 percent. Which makes quantum mechanics agree perfectly with Eintstein's theory of relativity.

The whole probability thing stems from our inability to exactly predetermine quantum events. But since time has no arrow as far as quantum mechanics are concerned, there is no difference between predetermination and postdetermination.

Cerveny wrote:Quantum theory only estimates the probability of the particular events. It is impossible to calculate (for example) decay time of particular neutron. Free neutrons usually decay during several minutes - it is all we know. Another example you can see in tunneling electrons – we can not resolve the particular time when some electron successes. Such accidental phenomena are the essence, base of arrow of the time phenomena. From the same initial configuration we can get different results. The causality pays on this (quantum) level only in the sum… Only after the particular phenomenon occurs the new time layer of Universe is added, is glued to the history. The history grows, condensates, crystallizes from the "future", better: from the outside odd-causal phase. BB was only the calm beginning of condensation in this context
PS: You certainly do not believe your every action is in detail prepared, waiting somewhere in the remote space-time

Notvacka wrote:The words "prepared" and "waiting" are not entirely accurate, since they imply one further dimension of temporality, but yes, that's exactly what I believe. The notion that the future doesn't exist, just because we haven't experienced it yet, seems much harder to believe. That the future would exist in some vague, unformed way seems even more ridiculous. Every point in time must be as valid as any other. What is "past" and what is "future" is entirely a matter of perspective. No particular moment of "now" is more "real" than the next.

Godfree wrote:As I have stated at least 50 times in these forums ,
the red shift is caused by photon decay ,
the red shift is real it exists , it is a measurement of distance ,
which is a measurement of time , we can calculate both from the colour,
the uniformity of the red shift ie it's all distant galaxies ,
suggests to me there is very little red shift caused by movement ,
or we should see galaxies with one half red and one half blue ,
because they are rotating, this doesn't appear to be the case,,!!!

A quick goggle finds problems with your tired-light theory.

When will you realise that your thinking is pointless if you wish to actually contribute to this subject? A philosophy forum is not the place for this any more as we've realised long-ago that such metaphysics is futile, as the Newtonians proved. You want to convert them? Learn physics and maths and then you can philosophise as they do.

Arising_uk wrote:

Godfree wrote:As I have stated at least 50 times in these forums ,
the red shift is caused by photon decay ,
the red shift is real it exists , it is a measurement of distance ,
which is a measurement of time , we can calculate both from the colour,
the uniformity of the red shift ie it's all distant galaxies ,
suggests to me there is very little red shift caused by movement ,
or we should see galaxies with one half red and one half blue ,
because they are rotating, this doesn't appear to be the case,,!!!

A quick goggle finds problems with your tired-light theory.

When will you realise that your thinking is pointless if you wish to actually contribute to this subject? A philosophy forum is not the place for this any more as we've realised long-ago that such metaphysics is futile, as the Newtonians proved. You want to convert them? Learn physics and maths and then you can philosophise as they do.

Godfree's new word to sum up bbt maths ,
mathturbation ,
you all seem to have overlooked the reality that we can see galaxies older than the bang ,
not my claim , not my maths , Hubble deep field images ,
13 billion year old galaxies that are red and dead ,
if you want to ignore reality and stay in your fantasy land ,
your loss , I can't make you see reality ,
any more than I can make a christian realize god is not real ,
I repeat , 13 billion years ago there were galaxies of all ages and sizes , just as we have today , some are dead , old and dead ,
this process takes time , more time than 700,million years,
soon we will see galaxies 14 and 15 billion light years away ,
will you continue to believe the bb fantasy at that point ,
what will it take to get you to wake up ,,???

Godfree wrote:this process takes time , more time than 700,million years,

Prove it. The oldest galaxy I've seen reported was 500 million years after the big bang so prove that it takes longer than 700 million years. Don't just state it.

To get good knowledge we need to ask good questions ,
asking a Hubble bb site will only get info supporting the bb ,
if you want to know the alternative , just google ,
galaxies older than the bang ,
that will bring up several good sites , including the Daily Galaxy ,
and the page referring to galaxies older than the bang
as posted before , a hubble site mentions the 13 billion year old galaxies ,
but just the young blue ones, trying to make us think that is all there is ,
but other sites see galaxies of all ages , sizes and stages of evolution ,
the Hubble site tried to make it sound as tho these were young galaxies ,
formed quicker than they thought but they were inventing a theory,
such as a period of rapid evolution in the early stages of the expansion ,
to try and make the new knowledge fit the theory ,
a bit like religion trying to change to stay relevant or current ,
by accepting some of the new knowledge , ie evolution
so don't waste your time trying to get Hubble sites or a bbt site ,
to provide you with the info to discredit the bbt ,
you said a quick google found fault with my tired light,
if you had googled , photon decay , you would have found support , for pd,
so you need to be very specific if you want alternative knowledge ,
to find info against the bbt ,
you need to google things like ,, what is wrong with the bbt ,
galaxies older than the bang ,
you need to seek a specific piece of knowledge , that you believe ,
is proof that the bb is wrong ,
such as the age of the universe , size of the universe ,
my top three at the moment are,
photon decay the explanation for red shift,
galaxies older than the bang ,
and the pattern of galaxies ,
I get the feeling you can't even see what I'm on about with the pattern ,
do you understand what I'm saying ,
Arising ,John , Notvacka , any of you , do you understand what the universe,
looks like ,,from a distance ,looking at a large chunk of space ,
there is no indication from the pattern of galaxies that there was any bang,
and as the first of the web sites I offered stated,
galaxies clump together to form the structures we see today,
it's like the lights are on but nobodies home ,,,!!!

John wrote:

Godfree wrote:this process takes time , more time than 700,million years,

Prove it. The oldest galaxy I've seen reported was 500 million years after the big bang so prove that it takes longer than 700 million years. Don't just state it.

Galaxies of all ages and sizes have been seen by the latest imagery ,
red and dead , galaxies that have gone through their life cycle ,
and are now dead , 13 billion years ago ,
and yes the latest is up to 13.2 , just 500 million years to form a galaxy from dust and go through it's life cycle to dead , all in 500 million years ,
our suns life cycle is about 10 billion years ,
our milkyway galaxy is supposed to be 13 billion years old ,
there are no other examples of such a short life cycle ,
but I suppose the bb theorists will adapt the theory to fit ,
do you consider 500 million years enough for a galaxy to be born and die,
the 13 billion year old universe looked just the same as today ,
no indication of an early universe going through it's infancy ,
quite the opposite , old galaxies and new just like today,,!!!

Godfree wrote:do you consider 500 million years enough for a galaxy to be born and die

How would I know? I believe the claim is that a galaxy was formed 500 million years ago not that it had been born and died in that time frame.

I'm also not sure if you mean to be disparaging when you write "I suppose the bb theorists will adapt the theory to fit". It is absolutely proper that theories be adapted to fit the evidence.

I don't think this debate is really going anywhere anyway. Either you're claiming to be more knowledgeable than most of the astrophysics community or you're suggesting they're all engaged in some monumental conspiracy theory and neither proposition seems particularly sensible.

It's also difficult to infer anything positive from your insistence in debating this in a philosophy forum where there are, to the best of my knowledge, no specialists in the field rather than in a forum were you're ideas can be scrutinized by people who are specialists.

Godfree wrote:...
will you continue to believe the bb fantasy at that point ,
what will it take to get you to wake up ,,???

I've told you, I've already woken-up, at least philosophically that is, as what you are doing is pointless thinking, a metaphysical waste of time. Essentially you are seeking for a 'faith' or 'meaning' or explanation to or of existence from the sciences, much like a religion. I think this not what philosophy does any more as those who do this left and became Physics. You want to understand the Universe? Become a Physicist as what you are doing is not knowledge but just arguing from authorities.

I do not believe anything about the BBT other than that some scientists propose it as an explanation that best fits their maths and experimental data. Do I think it true? No idea as I have no grounds to judge. Do I prefer it to 'God' made it? Sure.

John wrote:

Godfree wrote:do you consider 500 million years enough for a galaxy to be born and die

How would I know? I believe the claim is that a galaxy was formed 500 million years ago not that it had been born and died in that time frame.

I'm also not sure if you mean to be disparaging when you write "I suppose the bb theorists will adapt the theory to fit". It is absolutely proper that theories be adapted to fit the evidence.

I don't think this debate is really going anywhere anyway. Either you're claiming to be more knowledgeable than most of the astrophysics community or you're suggesting they're all engaged in some monumental conspiracy theory and neither proposition seems particularly sensible.

It's also difficult to infer anything positive from your insistence in debating this in a philosophy forum where there are, to the best of my knowledge, no specialists in the field rather than in a forum were you're ideas can be scrutinized by people who are specialists.

Obviously I'm putting too much into each post,
and you get the point lost before you finish reading ,
I'll try and be as clear and simple as I can ,
13.2 billion years ago galaxies existed that had already completed their life cycle , red and dead , google it if you dare , red and dead is term ,
given to galaxies that are old and dead , and we can see some of them ,
back at 13.2 billion years ago ,
Suns/stars burn hydrogen mainly , until it's exhausted ,
then they go into a phase of burning more complicated elements,
this process takes time, it will take nearly 10 billion years for our sun to burn off it's hydrogen ,
the distant galaxies are full of millions of suns ,
burning their hydrogen away , and now they are dead ,
just like the bb theory

Arising_uk wrote:

Godfree wrote:...
will you continue to believe the bb fantasy at that point ,
what will it take to get you to wake up ,,???

I've told you, I've already woken-up, at least philosophically that is, as what you are doing is pointless thinking, a metaphysical waste of time. Essentially you are seeking for a 'faith' or 'meaning' or explanation to or of existence from the sciences, much like a religion. I think this not what philosophy does any more as those who do this left and became Physics. You want to understand the Universe? Become a Physicist as what you are doing is not knowledge but just arguing from authorities.

I do not believe anything about the BBT other than that some scientists propose it as an explanation that best fits their maths and experimental data. Do I think it true? No idea as I have no grounds to judge. Do I prefer it to 'God' made it? Sure.

I find it strange you would come to a philosophy forum ,
to refuse to debate things,
my claims , most of them seem to get overlooked or dismissed without ,
any real consideration or thought ,
The observational data does not fit the bbt,
5 years ago we could only see about 12 billion light years back ,
now it is out to 13.2 , when it gets to 14.2 , I'll get back to you,
to see if you still want to defend the lost cause ,,!!!

Notvacka wrote:....The words "prepared" and "waiting" are not entirely accurate, since they imply one further dimension of temporality, but yes, that's exactly what I believe. The notion that the future doesn't exist, just because we haven't experienced it yet, seems much harder to believe. That the future would exist in some vague, unformed way seems even more ridiculous. Every point in time must be as valid as any other. What is "past" and what is "future" is entirely a matter of perspective. No particular moment of "now" is more "real" than the next....

You can replace the word "prepared" and "waiting" by the word "determined" or "given".
"Determined Universe" (Einstein's world) means that every motion, every decay of every elementary particle, every intention of every man are (already) given (fixed) in advance for ever.
Such Universe needs unlimited "memory", by the way - let us say then, unlimited "space-time".
I have two very big problems with it (at least):
- How such unlimited information can appear in the whole complexity in one moment?
- What is the sense of such Universe (why such Universe exists)?

Godfree wrote:Obviously I'm putting too much into each post,
and you get the point lost before you finish reading

You're not. It just amuses me that you think your points are either new or old ones that astrophysicists are ignoring or unable to answer.

You've still not responded to the academic paper I posted which just looks like more avoidance of experts who can show you where you are wrong.

Pose your question to Stephen Hawking and if it stumps him I'll take some interest.

Cerveny wrote:

Notvacka wrote:....The words "prepared" and "waiting" are not entirely accurate, since they imply one further dimension of temporality, but yes, that's exactly what I believe. The notion that the future doesn't exist, just because we haven't experienced it yet, seems much harder to believe. That the future would exist in some vague, unformed way seems even more ridiculous. Every point in time must be as valid as any other. What is "past" and what is "future" is entirely a matter of perspective. No particular moment of "now" is more "real" than the next....

You can replace the word "prepared" and "waiting" by the word "determined" or "given".
"Determined Universe" (Einstein's world) means that every motion, every decay of every elementary particle, every intention of every man are (already) given (fixed) in advance for ever.
Such Universe needs unlimited "memory", by the way - let us say then, unlimited "space-time".
I have two very big problems with it (at least):
- How such unlimited information can appear in the whole complexity in one moment?

"Already", "in advance", "in one moment" are no better than "prepared" and "waiting". Your words still imply one further dimension of temporality: The "memory" you speak of is the universe itself. All possible "information" about the universe is stored in the universe. In fact, you might say that the information is the universe. It does not "appear" in one moment. The whole of it just is. We experience a temporal slice of existence called "now". Our moment of "now" changes while the universe remains the same.

Cerveny wrote:- What is the sense of such Universe (why such Universe exists)?

Now, there is a question you might ask God, if you believe in God. Why does anything at all exist? What kind of universe would have a reason to exist? I don't think a determined universe makes less "sense" than an undetermined one.

Godfree wrote:I find it strange you would come to a philosophy forum ,
to refuse to debate things,
my claims , most of them seem to get overlooked or dismissed without ,
any real consideration or thought ,
The observational data does not fit the bbt,
5 years ago we could only see about 12 billion light years back ,
now it is out to 13.2 , when it gets to 14.2 , I'll get back to you,
to see if you still want to defend the lost cause ,,!!!

You are deluded if you think you are debating anything that philosophy is now interested in, as we've long-ago given-up such metaphysics as a pointless exercise. You want to truly debate these things then become a physicist as until then your are just blowing wind. Or just point me to the links on a physics forum where you've debated such stuff.

You mistake the words for the subject, they're not. The maths and the actual experiments are. Learn one and devise the other to prove the theories that you've read about.

Arising_uk wrote:...as we've long-ago given-up such metaphysics as a pointless exercise.

You have to remember that metaphysics (literally beyond physics) is pure speculation and never meant to replace physics the way Godfree is trying to do. Qualified physicists engage in metaphysical speculation too. (The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a prime example.)

I'm more interested in Cerveny's line of reasoning, since he at least seems to understand the actual physics.